I feel the need to write an addendum to my warm and friendly advice to the Democrats of a few days ago.
This one goes out to Nancy and Rahm. Have you heard of the New York Times? Perhaps you read it from time to time? Did you happen to see today’s edition, a story above the fold on page one, where Dick Cheney called the Democrats the party of al-Qaeda for having the temerity to nominate Lamont over Lieberman?
Does this get through to you, or does it bounce off the thick padding of poll results that you wrap around your skulls? He’s calling you traitors. He’s saying you’re providing aid and comfort to the enemy. He says you’re in league with London bombers and the 9/11 hijackers.
Are you waiting for them to actually run campaign ads with swastikas Photoshopped onto your sleeves? What rhetorical device will it take for you to understand that the gloves have long been off? For one side, at least.
Howard, at least, seems to sort of get it:
It’s right-wing propaganda. They are beginning to look ridiculous: A majority of Americans now believe that going to Iraq was the wrong thing to do. I think this shows how far out of touch the Republicans are.
But I’ll briefly channel the Dean of that alternate universe I mentioned, the one where the Democrats aren’t scared of their own shadow, and relay what he was quoted as saying in their New York Times today:
They are the party of fear and hatred. They have murdered and tortured the innocent and failed miserably at protecting us. Once again they regress to attacking as criminals anyone who would question the monarchy of King George II. It’s un-American and wrong, and the Democrats will continue to speak out against such heinous abuses of our political system.
“Beginning” to look ridiculous. Queensbury is alive and well.
Like you , I saw Cheney’s comments and winced. Your alternate-universe Dean (as well as this universe’s Dean) don’t solve the problem, though. They are just varying levels of “Can you believe how awful our opponents are? Vote for us!” I don’t understand why Democrats refuse to see this as a failed policy, despite consistent and growing empirical evidence.
The solution is not in Nancy, Rahm or Howard’s camp. The solution rests with Ned. Instead of saying, “a vote for me is a vote against the war,” he should be saying, “I’ve thought about our situation in Iraq, and here’s what I’d do differently than the current administration.” Then, a vote for him is a vote for something, not against something, which will earn him more than just the party loyalist vote, and make election about more than just GOTV.
Personally, I think that when a level of “how awful our opponents are” is so richly deserved, it’s worth making that argument. Especially when you’re concerned about the turnout of your own, presumably less awful, party.
Again, I agree with you that a Democratic message is missing here — but what’s also missing is a substantial response to the attacks of the ruling party. They’re calling us traitors on a daily basis. We need to respond in kind and stop trying to triangulate a safe reply that won’t offend anyone overmuch.